clayborg added a comment. In D93895#2480554 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D93895#2480554>, @augusto2112 wrote:
>> Here lies the problem that I mentioned above. I would like to avoid having >> to launch lldb-server with any arguments so that we continue to work with >> older lldb-servers. > > > >> So maybe we just rely on defaults for now and avoid having to add any new >> arguments to "process attach" and to the launching of the lldb-server? Let >> me know your thoughts. > > Sorry, I don't think I fully understand this point. Do you mean we shouldn't > add 'waitfor-interval' and 'waitfor-duration' since older lldb-server > versions might not recognize the packet format? I would vote to: - modify lldb-server - add '--waitfor-interval' and '--waitfor-duration' options to lldb-server for people that want to launch lldb-server manually - add vAttachWait, vAttachOrWait and the query packet to check if vAttachOrWait is supported - no modifications to lldb itself If I understood what you were asking before when you said: > On "Options.td", besides the "process attach" command, there's also a > "platform process attach". I haven't touched it since I'm not familiar with > the platform command. Should I add these flags to the platform counterpart as > well? It sounded like you were going to modify "process attach" to take options that would allow people to specify the '--waitfor-interval' and '--waitfor-duration' and then when we spawned lldb-server, pass these same options down to lldb-server or debugserver on Darwin. I was thinking it would be nice to avoid this part of the change as it then requires any lldb-server that LLDB uses to support these options. Lets say someone has a lldb-server already installed on their system, only updates the lldb binary and then tries to debug something with "process attach --waitfor". It would launch the lldb-server possibly with the '--waitfor-interval' options and it would exit with a non zero status saying "I don't know that option". Do we currently add or remove options when launching lldb-server based on any "process attach" arguments? If we do, then my suggestion doesn't make sense. If we don't, then it does make sense. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D93895/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D93895 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
